One of the more pressing questions in the ongoing war against Islamofascism is, how do we fight these people?

It’s not just an academic question. The opponents of classical liberal civilization have become adept at using the West’s principles against us. The Geneva Conventions, for instance, were originally designed to protect both civilian populations and members of lawful armies from mistreatment. Terrorists from Lebanon to Somalia to Afghanistan, with no small amount of help from jurists and journalists in the West, have learned to turn those principles on their heads, regularly using civilian populations as shields from attack, only to turn and claim “atrocity” when attacks are carried out against terrorists hiding amist civilians. They have also used the West’s legal systems as defenses, claiming rights to which they are not entitled under the letters of prior treaties, but accepting no responsibility for their own barbaric treatment of captured Western soldiers or civilians.

These conditions are not likely to change. Gunmen in Mogadishu learned early that Americans do not attack women and children; they quite literally hid behind civilian women while shooting at US troops as a result. What then can the response be from the civilized world?

For the Israelis, when Hezbollah intentionally locates its forces within civilian neighborhoods and next to technically neutral “UN peacekeepers,” the answer is to attack anyway, albeit after sending warnings to the civilian population to flee (imagine for a moment the leadership of al Queda or Hezbollah even contemplating taking the same measures). In a world without many easy answers, their decision is understandable, if still terrible.

The question still remains for us: how do we fight? We don’t want to stoop to the enemy’s barbarism, but it’s even less palatable to consider acquiescing to that very same barbarism. They must be defeated, but how, and at what cost, both to us or to innocents in between?

In the end, I’m afraid the answer is still the terrible one: unwillingly harming innocents in the crossfire is still preferrable to surrender–especially when surrender means subjugation at best and annihilation at worst. It’s an awful, awful choice, but it’s one we’re going to have to make many times over during the harsh years of the Long War.

“…unwillingly harming innocents in the crossfire is still preferrable to surrender–especially when surrender means subjugation at best and annihilation at worst.” — Will Collier

The fact of the matter is that as long as people are willing to be human shields, or willing to abide with the likes of Hezzballah working amongst them, they’ve made their decision. Their choice. And when the fit hits the shan, they’re going to get ‘splattered’.

We’re considerably more ‘considerate’ these days, considering we killed 70,000 Japanese civilians in one single air-raid duing WWII.

Every people gets the governance they ‘deserve’. That includes what passes for governance in Lebanon. And they suffer or florish accordingly.

As for the Qana incident, things are never as bad nor as good as first reported.

As the dust settles, more information is coming out that the Israelis might not be at fault in this incident.

Then again, any ‘youth’ stupid enough to be around a military weapon in a combat zone is just asking for a short life-span.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Look upon it as evolution in action. -- Niven and Pournelle]

If the Lebanese stash their military hardware near civilian apartments, the Israelis hit the hardware, and the apartments (and the civilians in them) are destroyed as well, that’s not saying that Israel has stooped to the same barbarism as its enemies. In fact, Israeli conscience should be perfectly clean here — the Lebanese chose their tactics, and paid for them with their lives.

(You’ll note that I don’t distinguish between “Lebanese” and “Hezbollah.” I don’t think I need to: Hezbollah are a Lebanese military outfit.)

If we are going to win this war, our first step is to get over this inability to cause death without spending the next umpteen years punishing ourselves. It’s one thing to deliberately target civilians, as the Hezbollah is doing; accepting their deaths as collateral damage because of what their military has done, is a transgression against neither the rules of war nor basic human decency. Israel still hasn’t absorbed this point (as evidenced by the latest 48-hour ceasefire), and the Hezbollah will use this hangup of theirs to its own advantage.

The ironic thing is that, once we drop this attitude, Hezbollahs all over the world will be denied the use of this tactic, resulting in fewer collateral-damage deaths. But first, we have to ditch this useless and simplistic piety.

Unfortunately for future generations, the apparent victory of Hezbullah reflected by the 48-hr unilateral cease-fire by the Israelis demonstartes the military-effectiveness of Hezbullah’s guerilla-tactics….and be damned the Laws of War. The Laws of War are for losers who worry about losing sleep at night. I fear the until the West is pushed into a position of sheer-”survival”, it will always lose to the Jihahis.

I’m afraid that I have to agree with Ted B, who is correct in his observation, “I fear the until the West is pushed into a position of sheer-”survival”, it will always lose to the Jihahis.”

These people deliberately hide their weapons among civilians. They fire their weapons from civilian enclaves. They rely on us acting in as humane a manner as possible. They will use any truce or cease fire as an opportunity to re-equip and resupply for the next attack. They deliberately wear civilian clothing so as to blend in. In our country they posed as airline passengers to use jets as guided missiles to attck us.

As said in comments above, the Israelis are not deliberately targeting civilians, they are returning fire to the source of attacks on Israel.

There is no moral equivalence here. Israel is fighting for its survival against an enemy that is pledged to their destruction by any means and at any cost.

I hope and think that Israel understands this. The bigger question is do we?

The West is lost. It is over. What passes for it only time will tell. Europe does not know they are defeated, but defeated they are. They bear no resemblance to the pillars of Western thought from which they sprang and then forgot. Shameful!

And the US is also finished, though they might yet put up a struggle.That Syria still exists is a testiment to their inability to fight.

To any leftwing nut job out there, just remember, they will not differentiate between you and me. We will both be considered without value – my Christianity might keep me alive in a completely subjegated (sp?) fashion for a while. Your unwillingness to accept religion will get you killed quickly. My only thought that keeps me somewhat sane is the knowledge that your stupid attitude will have created the circumstances of our defeat, and I will get to watch you die first; with complete bewilderment on your face, no doubt. It isn’t much of a consolation though.

The outcome of the conflict we face can be best summed up by one question: “Will the media be willing to put political correctness aside for the sake of its own survival”?

And I think we all know what the answer to that question is.

And until such time as the polity is able to put its fear of being called ‘racist’ or ‘insensitive’ in the media aside, no one will really call out the terms of what this war really entail. We will continue to “surgically” strike at the limbs of an enemy that needs amputation at the neck in order to defeat it.

If you think back to Big Mistake Number Two, the press (via newsreel ads for war bonds), pictures and cartoons all whipped up the US populace to an extent not seen before. Some of the cartoons made at the time (“Bugs Nips The Nips” is an example) have been pulled from circulation because they are now considered “offensive.”

Ain’t no way in hell that happens today. Look at the reportage of that scuzzball up in Seattle shooting Jewish women for the greater glory of Allah. The L.A. Times considered the reason for that butchery a “mystery.” CAIR could not help but include a reference to “violence in the Middle East” in its “categorical condemnation.”

Unless the dynamic changes, unless the politicians grow some balls, and until the media are held to account for their cheerleading for the Splodeydopes, we are in a long-term status quo situation.

We’re a generation removed from where the terms of this fight were named, specifically the 1979 Teheran embassy takeover. When the Iranians figured out that Jimmah could be held at bay with holding a gun to the head of an innocent, it wasn’t long before the rest of the Splodeydopes started studying from that very book.

The way to fight a war is different from the way to fend off an attack. A war is a long campaign, involving military and non-military action. What the Israelis are doing is kicking back.

That Hezbollah is getting its ass kicked is undeniable.

As for the Rules of War, I say keep them and obey them. It may make the war longer and harder, but it does make victory more likely when we are fighting on foreign land even against unlawful assholes. Where we went wrong in Iraq is not that we fought with one (or one and a half) hands behind our back. We went wrong when we didn’t give the Iraqi people freedom with liberty. We should have written their constitution, since we know what the Iraqi people need than a bunch of clerics and warlords who got elected by their bands of enslaved serfs who don’t know anything other than “I’m your boss, do as I say.”

What we are witnessing is the capitulations prior to WWII done all over again. WE barely survived it. We have shown the islamofascists we are unwilling to save ourselves. They are preparing to do it for us. I weep for what my children will face, a question none of us have ever had to contemplate. Unless we are saying something else behind the scenes, it is done.

Treason and stupidity takes many forms, I guess my desire for them to receive their just rewards will be my sin, we will see how God judges me.

Chuck:

It is not me, but rather those who will make the decisions, almost all the mainstream media, the entire Democratic party and an increasing number of Republicans. Tell them, not me. I am heartened to see Israel blowing past their ceasefire folly. I am hoping my lament was premature.

I’m not sure the West is lost, though the Europeans might be…it is always-instructive to remember what Americans are capable of when pushed into survival-mode morality. I credit few cultures as being capable of such sheer-savagery and vicious no-hold-barred bloddy-mindedness as we Americans once the gloves come-off.

That too our enemies forget, and occasionally need to be reminded-of. And we have songs about it that we still teach our children…anyone else remember singing “Marching through Georgia” in elementary school? And that was on our own soil against our own people…..

I wouldn’t write the Euros off quite yet. If history has shown anything, it is that the Europeans have a nasty tendency to get downright nasty and brutal at times, particularly when the chips are down (Vienna calling anyone?)While I won’t bet the farm on a popular Western uprising against Islamofascism, I am not quite ready to fold my hand either. Despite what the elites may say, there is I think a strong undercurrent of Euro dissent against the rise of Islamism. Imagine a LePen in this country getting 20% of the popular vote.

Keep in mind that Europe also includes those former Soviet bloc nations which don’t have the Muslim populations of the Western countries; have not completely sold out to post-modernism in place of Christianity nor carry any of that post-colonial guilt that will get in the way of meting out harsh measures should some jihadists get uppity with say, Warsaw or Bucharest.

All it is going to take is a 9/11 size attack on Paris and watch the FFL get unleashed.

Good point from jon. Our biggest error is trying to export democracy rather then individual liberty (the two terms are *not* synonyms). When promoting majoritarian rule rather than individual rights, we have no defense against the majority giving state power to their religion. Darn right we should have written their constitution; unfortunately, not enough of our own citizenry understand the blessings of separating faith and state. Most of us aren’t even aware of the damage to the cause of individual liberty we have caused by refusing to separate education and state.

“My only thought that keeps me somewhat sane is the knowledge that your stupid attitude will have created the circumstances of our defeat, and I will get to watch you die first; with complete bewilderment on your face, no doubt. It isn’t much of a consolation though.”

I doubt you’ll get even that. I’d bet that they will go down convinced that everything would have been ok if the warmongers didn’t provoke them. It’s entirely YOUR fault that they’re being executed.

You quoted me correctly, but either missed my point or decided to ignore it.

Whether or not you or me are armed has nothing to do with it. If this country’s elites refuse to take care to put up a fight, our individual acts of heroism will be noted but for naught. If our culture as a whole is unwilling to make the sacrifices to remain free, and if I have the audacity to point that out, that does not mean I have given up, because in the end I will fight with whatever I have. It means I have stated the obvious – current government policy in the WEst is not conducive to survival. The only chance maybe is a nuclear blast that kills many Americans that will result in an awakening.

We can vote, argue and cajole, and pray that Israel stays steadfast and Syria does something stupid.

Europe has already voted with declining birth rates that will in our lifetime result in countries with substantial Muslim populations if not outright majorities. Europe is gone, they have no hope but to pray they don’t tick us off to the point that we refuse to try and save them.

Winning awar against Islamofacists can be won only one way….with the use of overwhelming force in the face of political correctness and not worrying what the media says. It is political correctness of the leftists in the mainstream media that holds back the western world in its batle against Islamofacism.

UltraViolet (Milla Vovovich) final showdown scene. Bad guy tries the “you’re bad too” trick. From memory… “Do you think, after all the people you’ve killed getting to me, that God will welcome you in Heaven?” Answer… “After this, He just might.”

It was worth watching the movie. (Guys might find other reasons worth watching the movie.)

The West, South America, and those who follow, more or less, our practices (India, China, many others) are enjoying enormous prosperity and stand at the helm of humanity.

The Middle East, and most hardcore Islamic countries are and remain backwaters, bearing an enormous price for the choices of their minorities. The only reason we don’t ignore them like other backwaters (Africa) is their oil, which, sooner or later, is going to become obsolete.

There is no huge “war” going on here, the various wars the West (mainly the US) are fighting have been done with no sacrifice or effort on society’s behalf (no additional taxes, no draft, relatively few casualties).

Come now, we spend four times as much creating nasty weapons to stave off China as we do sustaining our forces in Iraq.

So what is this talk of imminent doom? A need to change the fundamental values of our society so that we might better combat a bunch of backwater savages? Talk of the Christians surviving longer under some imagined Islamic rule?!

Of course the “Islamofascists” are delusional and would like to think this is an all-encompassing war, but you guys should know better.

I think JEM and the like are thinking about the long-term. Say like over the next 30-100 years.

Yes. The cretins of Islam are low-tech, for the time being. But they’re working on it. Not to mention, as so many are already aware, the population issues being experienced in Eurabia. Those will certainly impact on the matter.

William:
You’re in denial. These “backwater savages” killed more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor. They have openly declared war on us, and we failed to respond. You know, pretty soon, after enough people have been killed, you’ll figure out that these people really mean business. And if you think that we can play defense against people who are willing to die for what they believe in, your kidding yourself.

There is a revolution going on in Europe right now. The enemy is a militant minority that is using fear and intimidation to get it’s way, and they are winning.

In Darfur and Somalia the US has been called out, and we did’t respond. The US won’t go back into Lebanon. And when we leave Iraq, it will be seen as a humiliating defeat (much like Lebanon and Somalia).

They want impose Islamic fundamentalist law all over the world. They consider this absolutely necessary. Western values and western culture are corrupt and take people away from the one true faith. This is not a big secret. Bin Laden said it very plainly in his declaration of war against the US. Numerous fundamentalist Islamic writers have made this a major theme. One of the most important is Sayyid Qutb, a man who lived and studied in the US. His writings are filled with his disgust of western values in general and the US society in particular.

Will you allow them to impose fundamentalist Islamic law or not? If you do, then you surrender your most cherished beliefs, and you condemn millions of people to slavery (especially women). You can, of course, try to get in their way, and they’ll attack you. In a free society such as ours, that’s easy to do.

And even if you allow Sharia in foreign countries and offer no resistence, they will try to kill you anyway, because US society is “jahiliyya”, something that corrupts the world and needs to be destroyed.

Hey kevino, chill. Sharia isn’t so bad. All you have to do is follow the rules. How hard can that be? So it’s not so much fun for women or gay people and Hollywood will have to stop selling T & A but is that so bad a price to pay for peace?

Oh, and William… Africa isn’t ignored because they don’t have oil. Africa is ignored because they haven’t blown anything up but their own people. (And if we do actually, really, intervene in Darfur, we’ll find out that they DO have oil and it was oil all along.)

Down here working on making supper; rotis chicken with citrus flavoring, smashed potatoes with garlic, tossed genoa salami salad with ranch dressing, black olives and onion.

You know….killing time between basting the chicken. At any rate, with regards to an earlier post….

RE: Better? Than What?

“Of course the “Islamofascists” are delusional and would like to think this is an all-encompassing war, but you guys should know better.” — William

How much are you a student of (1) history; war and/or religion?

This ‘war’ has been waged since 800 AD. The campaigns began with the Muslim invasion of Spain. Moved into a further campaign into France, in the 9th Century. This was beaten back by the king of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’, Charles the Hammer. The Christian counter-offensives began with the Crusades in the 12th Century. These eventually failed due to a lack of commitment and internicene blood-letting.

But they were maintained through the efforts on the part of the Spaniards to drive the Muslims out; ending in 15th Century.

After that, the Muslims, via the Ottoman Turks, tried once more to overrun Europe, through the eastern portal. They were defeated at the Battle of Vienna in the 17th Century.

During World War I, Europe attempted its latest counter-offensive.

All in all, it’s a very long and drawn out affair. This business, al Qaeda, is only the latest Muslim offensive.

“Listen to yourselves. You’re going crazy.” — William

Yeah….

…like a ‘fox’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History: Lessons in human behavior that everyone should take to heart.]

My lord that you would associate our current efforts safe-guarding Western civilization with the greed-fraught campaigns of long-gone European tyrants. Or the haven of civilization Islam was in the middle ages with the terrorists of today. And you call the complete subjugation and subsequent parcing up of the Middle East an “attempt” to launch a counter-offensive? You have a very unique view of history, or atleast I hope unique.

The oil is a big issue. Not because they won’t sell it to us, of course they’ll do that, if they can (albeit 1973 would say otherwise). Rather, because the “Islamofascists” (terror elements) threaten to destabilize the region, keeping the despots from selling it. That, and because the guys attacked us, is the Middle East is so much more important to US policy than the level of prosperity enjoyed there would suggest.

But those form not the main point. Relatively speaking, these people, this perceived threat, is nothing.

When Pearl Harbor happened, our population was half as large. Furthermore, it crippled our Pacific fleet. Finally, the Japanese retained the ability to do it again, having as they did a fleet of carriers.

9/11 was a one-timer which did not affect the strategic capabilities of this nation. Furthermore we invaded two countries in retaliation, without blinking an eye so far as sacrifice on our part goes.

Yes, the idea of living under Sharia is terrible, but its not going to happen. Again, you’re crazy if you think it is. Look at all the prosperous countries, look at those countries that are technologically advanced, they are not Islamic, and if they are, then they are not practicing the Sharia.

The Germans, the Japanese before WWII they had terrible terrible practices, but they were also the most civilized people out there, economically powerful and technologically advanced. Thus they constituted huge threats. Give me a few Islamofascist countries or organizations that are on the cutting edge of technology? Iran would be the closest, but it still doesn’t even have nukes, which have now been around for… 60 years.

So, when you say the imposition of Sharia is imminent, even within 30-100 years, I respond, the Sharia and what army? Chinese communism is more powerful than all the “Islamofascists” combined.

Step back, gain some perspective. After their oil dries up, these guys will either go back to being nothings or adapt to the Western Way and join the rest of humanity.

William:
I’m not saying that imposing Sharia is imminent. I’m saying it’s repugnant. Even if it only existed in backwater countries like Afghanistan, it is still terrible. And the idea is spreading. In case you didn’t notice, there is a fundamental shift in Islamic culture going on right now. Islam used to accept a separation between followers of Islam and unbelievers: believers follow strict rules (e.g. not insulting or depicting the Prophet) while outsiders are free to do as they like. In recent months, radical leaders have tried the idea that those who insult the religion or the Profit should be punished. Guess what, we didn’t really object, and they successfully pushed the idea. They’re winning, and the more they win, the more they’ll push.

If you can’t deal with the problem, now that it is small, how do you propose to deal with it at all?

The answer is, of course, you don’t intend to. Most people on the Left are willing to surrender to Sharia – as long as it’s somewhere else. Sure, liberals believe in freedom and the dignity of the individual – as long as they don’t have to do anything that offends them. When Sharia gets bad, the Left holds a conference and submits a report to the Special UN Subcommittee for Writing Very Strongly-Worded Resolutions.

That leaves millions of people living in slavery, but the Left feels OK because it’s happening to those other people. This is cowardice and selfishness.

And what happens when the enemy demands Sharia in their neighborhoods in the US or Canada? (And what if it’s not Sharia, per se? What if Muslims living in your neighborhood don’t like the way your wife or daughter dress? What are you going to do about it?) Well, you’ll vote against it, of course. And they’ll start blowing up trains and shooting up schools.

QUESTION: How many people per year in the US have to die before we object to radical Islam? 50? 100? Sooner or later you’re going to have to take action. Sooner is better.

you would associate our current efforts safe-guarding Western civilization with the greed-fraught campaigns of long-gone European tyrants. You mean the Europeans who drove Muslim conquerors out of Western Europe, or the ones who drove Muslim conquerors out of Eastern Europe?Or the haven of civilization Islam was in the middle ages with the terrorists of today. By ‘civilization’ do you mean human rights and liberty, or knowledge and art? The Soviets managed to produce a lot of scientists and mathematicians, and the symphonies weren’t bad either. Same with your preferred enemy the Chinese. But like Islam of 1000 years ago (and today) those systems were built on oppression. Yes, Muslims invented Algebra. Great. And Khalid Sheik Mohammed became proficient at it on his way to an engineering degree. Knowledge isn’t the yardstick of civilization.

Relatively speaking, these people, this perceived threat, is nothing. When Pearl Harbor happened…the Japanese retained the ability to do it again whereas I guess the Department of Homeland Security has this country pretty much locked down, huh? Or are we just not letting suspicious Arabs on planes anymore?

we invaded two countries in retaliation, without blinking an eye so far as sacrifice on our part goes. The military performed admirably. But wars are fought by nations, and 48% of ours would rather have John Kerry as president(!) than continue to fight. I can’t understand what sacrifice they think they have borne, but for nearly half the country it’s already been too much – despite, as you say, virtually no sacrifice in terms of comparison to any other war in history.

look at those countries that are technologically advanced, they are not Islamic, and if they are, then they are not practicing the Sharia. Today, no. But they’re pushing for it in every nation in the West.

The Germans, the Japanese…were also the most civilized people out there Didn’t you just defend ancient Islam on the grounds of its civilization? [T]hey constituted huge threats. Give me a few Islamofascist countries or organizations that are on the cutting edge of technology? Iran would be the closest, but it still doesn’t even have nukes, which have now been around for… 60 years. Know what’s been around for 4 billion years? Gravity. Know what can still kill you? Falling from a great height. The fact that nuclear technology is old makes it more dangerous, not less, because the resources needed to harness it have become cheaper and the knowledge of how to use it more widespread.

So, when you say the imposition of Sharia is imminent, even within 30-100 years, I respond, the Sharia and what army? How many divisions did the pope have? 100 years is a long time. Imagine telling a Frenchman in 1906 that they would not only lose control of Algeria, they would have a tenuous grip over North African neighborhoods in Paris. Chinese communism is more powerful than all the “Islamofascists” combined. Yeah. Which is why they haven’t picked a fight with the Chinese. How does that help us?

After their oil dries up, these guys will either go back to being nothings or adapt to the Western Way and join the rest of humanity. The day the oil runs out, they’ll have the proceeds of the previous day’s sales, and the knowledge that their miserable poverty will only get worse. You think they’ll spend their last few billion translating Enlightenment philosophers into Arabic, or plotting ways to bring the West down with them?

Kevino, you raise some legitimate points. I whole-heartedly agree the sharia is repugnant, and should only be imposed upon societies that want it (basically nowhere). In those places where it has been forced upon an unwilling populace it must combatted. Intolerance, too, should be combatted. Call the crazy people crazy.

And you act as though their intolerance magically births terrorism, with us, having refrained from publishing Mohammed, useless to stop. Not at all, bombs and school shootouts (by the way that’s Chechnya, an entirely dif. issue) require networks and resources that can and are confiscated and persecuted by those institutions that keep such anarchy in check.

No open, modern, society has allowed for its imposition, and there is little indication any will.

Furthermore, the citizens of that most infamous of societies that did adopt the sharia, Iran, are now so sick of the religious law that the leaders are beginning to roll parts back in order to stave off popular rebellion.

Oh, and I’m not a liberal.

Bgates you didn’t have so many good points.

First, I was referencing the crusades, not the Moorish invasions.

Second, human rights & liberty as we know them were not widespread concepts until the Enlightenment. Thus so far as civilization was concerned in the middle ages, the Islamic world was the apex.

Third, beyond the fact that it is almost impossible for an armed hijacker to get on a plane, once he revealed himself the pilot would rather crash the plane than turn over the controls, and the passengers wouldn’t go easy either. Even were he to get past all that, the plane would be shot down. Planes into buildings, and thus destruction on the scale of 9/11, was a one time only method.

Fourth, the populace does not support the war because they believe it is being poorly fought and cannot see the purpose. When you think something is useless, you don’t think it merits any sacrifice. (I, by the way, do see a purpose but believe it has been very poorly fought).

Fifth, again, there is the core point. Sure, they push for the sharia, and there are anarchists out there pushing… anarchy, it doesn’t mean its going to happen. Furthermore, we’re pushing back. We’ve invaded countries, put pressure on leaders, imposed sanctions, and, most importantly, rewarded those who capitulate with the endless rewards of free market capitalism (See Dubai). Finally, were a first world country ever to adopt the sharia (aint going to happen, but we’ll say it does), it wouldn’t stay first-world very long, and thus would cease to be a threat.

I cannot debate the danger of a nuke, only state that in the last 60 years we have developped the technology to such a point that in terms of all-out warfare, a Hiroshima nuke is obsolete. (“Alright, you killed a million people, .333% of our population. Now we flatten your nation.”)

Oh, and the Pope still has no military, and still has not imposed Catholicism upon me or anyone else.

Sixth, you’re mixing up your idea of a slow Islamic war and decolonization. Different things. And the French are very familiar with not having control over Paris. (See Paris commune 1871)

Seventh, you didn’t get the point. Let’s make it more clear. Turkey is more powerful than the “Islamofascists”. It’s stayed secular for 80 years now, despite all efforts to make it otherwise. The point is, these guys are weak.

Finally, you don’t understand oil. Even with the oil revenue, Saudi Arabia, most endowed of the states, has a GDP half that of Taiwan, a nation that’s got nothing but capitalism and Western Ideals for resources. You aren’t “bringing the West down with you” with the leftovers of half the GDP of Taiwan.

Why not drop the smart-alick nitpick approach and go ahead and present a counter-argument?

The answer is simple and easy: we tell them the truth. Then we tell them again. We must tell them that we known that Islam is a religion of hate and violence. We tell them that we have read the ‘traditions’ (hadiths) and we know that their great prophet was a vile, evil man.

Then give them references (book, chapter, verse) by the most respected Muslim writers (Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, Tabari, Muslim, etc…) that tell us that Mohammud was a torturer, murderer, slaver, plunderer, rapist, and that he even beat his own wife. This little fact – and the hate and violence in the Quran – may, just may, explain the current problems with Muslims (a wild guess!).

When a leader, a real leader, gets up on national TV and says the things that need to be said – the whole truth about Islam – then it will be all over. All we need is a Churchill. We need someone who will demand that Muslims be honest about their religion. We will not ask them to explain, or to justify these horrible sayings and deeds because they cannot be explained or justified. We will ask them to condemn the hate and violence in the Quran. We must read the hadiths to them and demand that they condemn the dispicable actions that Mohammed and his men did to so many innocent people. No excuses, no “out of context”, no “bad translations”, no “that was then” no “you don’t understand” and so on.

Muslim Imams and leaders cannot handle anything but the sugar-coated PC multiculturalist questions that they expect and love. For our sake, and for their own good, we must be honest and tell them the things they don’t want to hear.

The only problem is that we are in a war, but our leaders don’t know it. They will learn the hard way and the future will not be pretty. The only solution is to be honest with Muslims and tell them the truth – no matter how much it hurts their feelings.

Wow, you’re one to talk about smart aleck nitpicking. (By the way, you misspelled ‘aleck’.) I guess I have trouble understanding the rules here – you go point by point through what I said, sprinkling insults along the way, and that’s a counter-argument, but if I go point by point it’s something else. Rather than go point by point again, I’ll just note that you went from saying ‘this percieved threat is nothing’ to ‘I cannot debate the danger of a nuke’, so that’s progress. On the other hand, you do debate the danger of a nuclear strike by saying we can deter an enemy that has used suicide attacks countless times, besides which the Pope hasn’t forced you into Catholicism so religion has no force in world affairs, plus we already made Dubai capitulate. If that helps you think we face no real threat, fine. Don’t expect to convince anybody.

Let’s cut to the chase. “War is Hell.”, Gen Sherman. “It is good that war is so terrible or we would learn to love it to much.”, Gen Lee.
Why do wars stop? One side has bled enough that they just. don’t. care. who. is. in. charge. any. more.
We may need to return to the American concept of ‘Total War’ – not the nuanced versions of the Cold War and other recent modern conflicts.
The civilian populace is – and has been – a legimate target when they participate in the war industry of the target country. Would you argue the German Civ. putting together the Panzer IVs or the factory he was working during WWII was not a legitimate target? Once a person, in or out of uniform and of any age, accepts the storage, movement or production of a rocket system, they are part of the munitions protection and delivery system. A valid military target.
We just don’t accept that today. As ugly as it sounds, any one can be a legitmate target based on their actions.

“We may need to return to the American concept of ‘Total War’ – not the nuanced versions of the Cold War and other recent modern conflicts.” — Mike

Ever read T.R. Fahrenbach’s This Kind of War?

Pay particular attention to chapter 25, Proud Legions. In it he writes, “The American way of war is ‘jihad’.”

Maybe we should teach these cretins how to REALLY wage ‘jihad’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. T.R. Fahrenbach was a high school history teacher when Korea started. He was also an Army reservist. He was called up and spent the entire war serving in Korea.

When the war ended, he was deactivated and went back to teaching. He also wrote a book about the war. The book was published in the early 60s.

While attending Infantry Officer Advanced Course in ’79-80 at Fort Benning School for Boys, every ‘guest speaking’ general officer who came before the assembled classes told us to GET and READ that book.

I recommend it to you…..if you can find it. I got my copy via a nation-wide search by Tattered Cover.

Your willingness to carry a weapon so you can kill the crazies when they come for you is besides the point. It will not be fought that way.

I have skipped down a bit and have not read all that has come inbetween. This is how it all goes down, OK – if your little mind is too bogged down to come up with more than defeatist and whiney and carry a gun, I am sorry for you.

As I have said, soon, western Europe will be democratically a muslim region – birth rates make that almost a given unless the multicultural sensibilities of the elites start to really question their current laws and immigration policies. Your little gun – or many little guns will eventually be ineffective against that – sorry to burst your bubble.

Now – we hope that the Hezbollah act may have been premature, the now know missles are in Lebanon and we know Iran is looking to put nukes on them so they can turn Israel into dust – or glass as you wish! Hence their delay and whatnot on the whole nuke question with the UN (The UN that is another post). There is no evidence to suggest anyone in the west – including the US is willing to really confront this. Iran will have nukes and have them probably sooner than later. Israel may or may not survive in her present state but you can be damn sure no one will lift a military hand to help them. We are left hoping the entire middle east literally blows itself up. Of course if they don’t we have a bigger problem.

With the spread of totalitarianism in the southern part of the western hemisphere the transportation of several “suitcase nukes” are easily made ready to be transported through our very porous southern border to various big population centers. Then at the count of three… several US cities disappear, the number based upon how many we spot before they set up and detonate. Your gun will do nothing but evaporate right along with you cowboy.

Now I actually like guns, respect people who carry them for protection, and think gun control laws are stupid. But a gun doesn’t help you here, Mack. Our very sophisticated intellectuals think we can talk with them. Right! Our media eats whatever is spoon fed to them and are doing so right now. One of our major political parties is willing to pretty much do whatever they think can help us avoid having to make a tough decision, with the likely outcome of that tact being completely exposed to blackmail just to survive.

I don’t see any activity from our elites to really help the Iranian people throw off the islamocrats from their back. Where is the propaganda to do so? Does your gun do that? If you are looking to live in a mad max scenerio where you live based upon your skill with a gun, great, but it is not conducive to the life I want my kids to have. We are at a point in history where we need to decide if we as a nation, not a bunch of gunowners, are willing to tell Hitler no, when Chamberlin would not.

Right now, I am not seeing that – future events could prove me wrong, I am sure the government doesn’t wake up and say, hey lets tell JEM what all our secrets are so he won’t wack out. I am praying Israel’s actions create the conditions for bringing this to a head, otherwise it is a bumpy road with an excellent opportuity for disaster for the western civ.

Now Chuck(ie) I generally like your quips and posts, whether you are taking issue with a position I support or not. But you need to get a little more serious here, this isn’t about guns, this is about your and my lives.

And to the others who think this is all overblown, society is on the side of the advancement of technology and commerce and we will weather this – you might be right. But history demonstrates that this is not always so, and frequently is not so. When a civilization loses the will to stand for what used to be their moral codes, and has lost their willingness to defend their way of life and call evil what it is, they usually aren’t too much longer for this earth. Are we too soft, and figure the matters of commerce and leasure exempt us from this worry?

What do you need to do? Vote for people who will defend our civilization and call islamofascism what it is – evil. Vote for people who will actively avoid the scenerio I painted up front and not just by trying to stop the nuke before it blows up. If you are young enough you may wish to join the service, although I do not think our present difficulty comes from an inability to project force – it is a weakness of the spirit. I will keep fighting the only way I know how, perhaps just by trying to wake people up to what we face, and asking them, are you willing to tell your leaders, the media, etc. , that it is time to get your head out of the sand. Am I afraid it is too late – yes. Will I stop shouting awake, awake – no.

Will has some interesting arguments here, but sometimes this kind of thinking can degrade into more problematic kinds of thinking. I am curious for feedback on my latest blog entry regarding will’s entry. (Can’t find the trackback uri for this entry somehow…)

bgates, I apologize on the aleck comment, I was just a bit put off after the tedious rebuke. No more personal jabs. Now for the position.

Know your enemy before you go out to fight him.

Our enemy is certainly not Islam as a whole. Yet neither is is it the radical Islam that most our enemies espouse. Were it, it would be invincible. There is no way you can defeat a person a people imbued with radical Islam. As Kevino said, no conventional police force may defend against the suicidal.

Then it is fortunate radical Islam is not the enemy. Nay, rather it is those factors that bring about the circumstances under which radical Islam thrives. Namely, the desperate conditions enjoyed by most in the Middle East: their economies are going nowhere, almost all the power, political and financial, is held by an elite few, and the populace, the majority of which are youth under 25 years of age, are going crazy at their inability to improve their lives and take control of their future. Normally, when a large segment of society loses faith in its institutions’ abilities to accomadate them, they lash out at those in charge of the institutions, attempting, in an often violent and disorganized manner, to fix the system by transforming it: they revolt.

The elites in the Middle East are atleast partially if not fully aware of the situation, but they have devised a devious system of avoiding said disorder (and the fate it would bring them): they’ve passed the buck. Through direct support of Islam and indirect support of radical Islam, they have successfully redefined the situation in the eyes of their desperate society.

The people in charge are no longer the elites who are hogging the oil while repressing reform and political dissent. Nay, it is the United States. The case that we are in charge is understandably easy to make. In many ways we are. We intervene continuously militarily, support Israel, and are always telling them what to do. The case that we are thus responsible for the woes of their society is made easy once religion is mixed in: our culture is “wrong” and thus by merely having power over them taint their society, causing social problems, which in turn is why you, Joe Muslim, are dirt poor, don’t have a future, and feel hopeless & desperate. In such a way the oil elites of the Middle East have successfully deflected that malcontent that has in the past been at the root of revolts from France to Russia to Iran. Most Joe Muslims subsequently fume at the United States and cheer when the footage of Hezbollah comes up. A crazy few find the resources or provide the resources to “revolt” against the United States through acts of terror and many many delusional diatribes about how Islam will rule us all.

Thus the enemy is not radical Islam. No, that is just a weapon, a particularly dangerous idea that has been manipulated as deftly as we may manipulate planes and armor in our wars. The enemy is those that have decided the satisfaction of their greed is more important than the welfare of the societies they control. An example: Those Iranian Mullahs who fund Hezbollah, rail against the United States, and advocate their nuclear program are also some of the biggest Iranian propertyholders.

Thus now that we understand the root of radical Islam and the terrorism, anti-Americanism, and, occasionally, sharia it in turn spawns, we understand also the extent and capabilities of the threat.

First, in most open societies, radical Islam cannot endure. If a populace is to support it, they must not have an economic or political stake in society (thus be poor & without a vote) and be surrounded by an institutional & media presence that supports radical Islam. Impressively, through their negligence and the hard work of Iran, such a state has nearly been achieved in many European countries, yet were they to organize politically (begin voting) they would then have a stake (but take note: not control) in society and thus no longer interested in its destruction.

Second, the elites whose greed gives radical Islam its power, being motivated by greed, are also limited by it. Thus we can be assured that Iran, upon nuclear acquisition, will not use the nukes against us, as outlined by JEM. They know that were they to do such a thing, they would lose all power at the hands of an enraged America. Indeed (granted we would never want such a thing to happen for our love of life) the use of a nuke would ultimately be the most positive possible development for the US. We would instantly gain full unwavering support from all other Western nations and would use our military capabilities in such a callous fashion that we would soon effectively rule the Middle East. That is not what the elites want. Like smart drug-dealers, they never buy their own product. They are not suicidal. No, the Iranian elites (they are the best example) use radical Islam and war-mongering only as a tool to control their populace (and use it effectively, as noted by Kevino, Iranian malcontent with the government has dropped dramatically since 2003, the same year they announced the nuclear program), not to actually fight the United States. They will only push it as far as they think it safe and no further. Of course, should they gain the bomb, that “safe” limit may be extended enormously, which is why we need to work against such a thing happening.

Obviously we will continue to fight terror and call radical Islam wrong wherever it crops up. But that’s just playing defense. To solve the problem we need to attack the root.

So how do we fight those elites that are spawning terror & anti-Americanism so that they might safeguard their own greed?

The most obvious method is to kill off the elites and institute a free society. We’re trying that in Iraq. Unfortunately, that requires enormous resources and, if improperly executed (as has happened in Iraq) might have more negative than positive consequences, atleast in the short term (I still hope for success).

A more practical approach would be to use economic & limited military pressure to force the elites to reform their society so as to redress the desperation of their citizens. In this endeavor we are limited by our dependence on oil, which makes us more dependent on them than they are on us (and prevents us from, for instance, air-striking Saudi Arabia to make a point), and that economic sanctions can be ineffective if unilateral (the case with Iran).

We can also wage a propaganda war. Again, though, we are severely limited as their elites control all mainstream means of propaganda, and they have more experience. Iraq could become a platform for a much more effective propaganda campaign, but again, that hinges on establishing a stable free society there, by no means a certainty.

Finally, we can give them the hug of death. Were we to broker a permanent peace in Israel and affected areas and tone down all other policies that may be twisted to justify radical Islam while stepping up aid programs, encouraging trade (like we have with China), condemning all Islamic rulers that do wrong, and taking advantage of opportune moments to prove our goodness (the tsunami aid is an excellent example), then we might make it impossible for them to denounce us as evil (for we do nothing but good, bring nothing but prosperity) and free the Muslim societies against their rulers will (as is happening in China).

Certainly there is no straight arrow solution, but the fourth mixed in with the other three according to the situation will probably get the trick done. To summate: radical Islam is not the enemy, rather is only the shield of greed. The elites (the rulers, politicians, bureaucrats, clerics, royal families) of the Middle East are the true enemy, for their placement of their own welfare before their societies’ is what has created such perfect breeding grounds for radical Islam. As such we need not fear a global war but the anti-Americanism, terrorism, and threat to our oil supplies radical Islam produces merits our effort towards a solution. Any such solution must concentrate on the elites and reforming their societies, and although I’ll hear suggestions, it promises to be complicated.

The ironic thing is that, once we drop this attitude, Hezbollahs all over the world will be denied the use of this tactic, resulting in fewer collateral-damage deaths. But first, we have to ditch this useless and simplistic piety.
-E. Nough

I concur.

The reason Hizbullah and the like are using humans as shields is because it works- even though the GCs say that presence of civilians does not render a military target immune to attack, the moral stigma of doing such a thing is considerable- deliberately killing a civilian noncombatant is very, very high on our list of dishonorable things that should not be done. The jihadis know this, use it against us, and operate under an entirely different code of conduct.

I fear we will not get to that point until a western city- probably an American city- is gone. Once that happens… well, it’ll get ugly. America has a lot of traditions, but one of the oldest is killing more of them than they kill of us, and if the ‘elites’ won’t give the order, we’ll elect ones who will.

Your willingness to carry a weapon so you can kill the crazies when they come for you is besides the point. It will not be fought that way.
-JEM

I used to work in a building about two blocks from where the Seattle shooting took place.

The war will not be won that way, but the nature of our enemies makes it certain that some of it will be fought that way.

Just because my guns won’t be useful against a suitcase nuke doesn’t mean they’re completely useless. The chance that I’ll be in the right place at the right time is small, I know. But I’ll feel like worse than an idiot if I am in the right place at the right time, and have to go in with nothing but bare hands and harsh language.

Our enemy is certainly not Islam as a whole. Yet neither is is it the radical Islam that most our enemies espouse. Were it, it would be invincible. There is no way you can defeat a person a people imbued with radical Islam. As Kevino said, no conventional police force may defend against the suicidal.
-William

Your premises are flawed. You can defeat people ‘imbued with radical islam’ by killing enough of them, and this is not a Police matter.

Rosignol, I think you have missed the broader point William is trying to make. Why not kill the hydra at its head (the power structure) rather than trying to “kill enough of them” and slice off tentacle after tentacle?

There’s one outside the US, but it’s already been decapitated at the global level.

Inside the US, post-9/11, all of the successful jihadi attacks have been motivated muslim individuals with no discernable connections to organized terrorists. The CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS have done a great job of keeping the really dangerous organized jihadis from accomplishing much of anything inside our borders, but that’s not all we need to be concerned about.

Think about it. The muslim in Seattle. That muslim who rented the biggest SUV he could find and drove it into the pedestrians outside a stadium. The muslim at the El Al ticket counter at LAX. The Sniper named John Mohammed. There are lots of examples (check out thereligionofpeace.com for a much more extensive list), and they look like untrained freelancers acting on their own initiative, not people who get orders from Bin Laden or Zawahiri.

For an open and free society such as ours, this is a nightmare. We are not set up to deal with this kind of thing. Most of the ways you can deal with this are forbidden by law and reviled by custom- with good reason, for they are the tools of a police state.

Our options are limited. ‘Killing enough of them’ is, IMO, the least disruptive approach with regards to our own society. Other options include instituting a police state (which is where we’ll end up through incremental steps, such as the patriot act, patriot II, patriot III, patriot IV, etc).

Personally, I’d be quite willing to live in a society where concealed and open carry was common and any freelance jihadi was shot dead as soon as they tried anything… but I don’t think that’s where we’re going to end up. People have been taught to look to the government to solve security issues instead of being able to deal with threats themselves, so we’re more likely to get politicans who promise more police, more departments, more regulations, more restrictions, and less privacy.

I’d rather take the ‘kill enough of them’ approach now, because as I said earlier, I think it’s the least disruptive approach with regards to our own society.

William, what a gracious apology. Likewise, I apologize for the tedium of my reply to your longwinded post. I’ll try to do better in my response to your latest 1500 words.

You discount the possibility that a sizable portion of the Muslim world doesn’t want mere economic comfort, or parity, but unquestioned supremacy. I don’t. The London bombers weren’t poor. Bin Laden of course was famously wealthy. Dearborn, MI can afford an awful lot of pro-Hezbollah signs. Sure, economics is a factor. But the only one or the largest one? I don’t think we can say.

You are sure the ‘true believers’ are fringe elements, but the men in charge are rational. I’m not. In the past people have believed that no one country, no matter how belligerent its rhetoric, would invite a coalition war that it was sure to lose. No one would believe it in 1938, no one would believe it in 1990 – and that was with avowedly secular dictators. At best Iran is either Kim Jong-Il level crazy (and deterrable as far as we can tell) or Saddam level crazy (and won’t see the line until it’s been crossed, or won’t care about the line at all.) At worst the Iranian leadership really thinks they can bring about the End Times. If they believe they can bring God to earth, they won’t pass up the chance to keep their rental income.

I think the idea that a nuclear strike on us would have a net positive strategic effect is ludicrous. First off, an attack would give every bad actor in the world a clear opportunity to cause trouble. If Manhattan were destroyed, I think China would be on Taiwan in a week; the North Koreans would have their best shot to reunify they’ll ever have; and a 3-5 state war against Israel I think is a given. As to the idea that we’d gain the full support of the West, I wonder if you think that’s what happened after 9/11. I recall lots of flowers sent to Ground Zero, but precious little infantry sent to Afghanistan. Given present world opinion, will we get more support next time? Or less?

We agree that attempting to create a liberal Arab society was the best first step at solving the problem.

Our leverage to apply your ‘more practical’ pressure to other regimes is limited as those regimes are less hostile than what would come after them if we withdrew support – they know it, and our experience in Iraq hasn’t made me think otherwise.

A propaganda war is a nice idea, but much of the Muslim world is really swayed by the argument, “they support the hated Jews!” which is hard to counter unless we say, “no we don’t.” Which leads me to the trouble with your ‘hug of death’.

You suggest there could be a peace deal that has both Arab acceptance and Israeli existence. Again, you’re presuming a degree of rationality in that part of the world I don’t see much in evidence. Aid is a nice idea too, but how do we keep it out of the hands of the governments that you blame for the mess to begin with?

I think rosignol is right, and this won’t end until after an American city is destroyed. In the meantime, yes, let’s try your strategies; I can hope to be wrong. But I think I’ll live to see a time when the kind of concerns raised in Will’s post (remember the post?) seem quaint.

“Our enemy is certainly not Islam as a whole. Yet neither is is it the radical Islam that most our enemies espouse. Were it, it would be invincible. There is no way you can defeat a person a people imbued with radical Islam.” — William

Bull pucky.

You can defeat a person, or a people ‘imbued’ with such.

One bullet or one nuclear lay-down, respectively, at a time; if it should come to that.

We defeated Imperial Japan that way. They were ‘religiously’ motivated to, as I recall. Or did they fail to teach you that in whatever you took for public education?

OK, bury your head if you wish. Volunteer yes I do, run for office, currently not in the cards but hopefully someday. You however have no answer, just canned responses.

That’s fine – it is a free country. I thought we were on the same side, but obviously you don’t know what side you are on, besides maybe your own -what is your plan to get the people who will end up determing how this terrorist war will end to react in a manner in our country’s favor? Because you have written nothing – nada – zip. Platitudes and quips. Very effective, and very influential no doubt. But the people who will have to save the country in the end think you are a kook and don’t listen to you. So what is your plan, hmmm. Wait – I forgot, you have no plan, except arming everyone, which you and I both know will never happen. You, sir, are a lightweight, get in the game or go hide in the rocky mountains!

Well spoken JEM. Chuck, why not go ahead and lay out your own solution instead of pointing to imagined weaknesses in our own, and then we can debate based on merits, not shortcomings. And there is only one William in the discussion.

Kevino, you argue but most of your rebukes fit neatly into the theory.

The lone Islamic agents operating in the West who seem so inexplicable seem to be a point of particular dispute, along with those of wealth who still throw themselves to the Islamic cause.

That is because, albeit the bulk of the support and the bulk of the danger comes from the disenfranchised masses of the Middle East, selected persons across the globe, no matter their position, will buy the same story being fed those masses, and, in what must to them seem an act of selfless heroism, take up their cause. Remember, the French revolution, the Russian revolution, these were not led by the commoners whose plight brought them about.

They were led by the educated who imagine themselves heroes of the people. Lenin was well educated and of the middle class. Osama is the same deal. When Osama began, it actually was a literal revolution in Afghanistan, throwing out the Russian occupation. He just never stopped.

That would be the main point of disagreement. Kevino also brought up the state of Islam in free societies. To answer that go no further than India: Over 130 million Muslims living in peace, for they have a stake in society, both political and economic(there is the occasional attack, probably with origins from Pakistan, which is one of the states whose elites deploy radical Islam). For additional examples, see Turkey, or Morocco, or Indonesia, or Tunisia. You will find the havens of radical Islam correspond directly with people who do not have political or economic stakes in their society, thus making those that bring such a situation about the enemy, not radical Islam.

Radical Islam dies in open societies, because its a terrible idea. Terrible ideas in free societies get shot down. As afore-mentioned, through European negligence and the hard effort of Iran (media, sponsorship of schools, etc.) isolated communities of Muslims have been established in some European countries, but their plight is no different from the plight is that of a minority, not a hostile army. Their goal is economic betterment (why else migrate to Europe?) and I assure you they will use any political power they gain towards that end, not conquest.

As I have said and you have expanded upon, there are many caveats in the solutions proposed. There is no silver bullet. However, if used wisely, those solutions proposed can move us forward. Merely making Iraq turn out well will make an enormous difference.

As to your (Kevino’s) last objection, raised repeatedly, something to the extent of the West lacks the will to deal with Islam, that is a false point.

Most do want to solve the problems in the Middle East, however, most do not see them as ranking before domestic problems (usually the economy) and certainly no longer trust Bush to solve them, for obvious reasons.

I think this a logical opinion. Our efforts in the Middle East certainly are achieving our two short term goals: no terrorism in the US, and the oil keeps flowing, while working toward the long term: building open societies in Iraq & Afghanistan. Should the problem radical Islam presents to the US escalate (terror in the US or an oil cutoff) I assure you public opinion will allow for greater efforts until we have the situation under control.

There are of course many faults in the American approach, many amends that could be made, and the prospect of Iranian nukes presents us with a very difficult problem, but atleast it would seem we are on the right course.

…is either (1) a failure to communicate or (2) you’ve got serious problems with understanding English.

RE: Getting Involved

“Volunteer yes I do, run for office, currently not in the cards but hopefully someday.” — JEM

Good for you, volunteering. Although I’m at a loss to fully grasp what you volunteer to do. American Red Cross? YMCA? How about being part of a board that moderates what goes on in your community? E.g., Zoning Board of Appeals, Historic Preservation Commission, your local Council of Area Governments, etc., etc.?

RE: So Much Manure

“You however have no answer, just canned responses.” — JEM

Yeah. Right.

You obviously have forgotten everything that has transpired between us these last few days. Either that or worse.

To put it in as few words as possible, “You are ‘projecting’”.

RE: Gravitas

“You, sir, are a lightweight, get in the game or go hide in the rocky mountains!” — JEM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….aaaaah.

I wish I COULD lose some of this weight. But, that’s up to God, for the most part. I could fast for days and still gain; or so it seems.

But consider the fact that I’m the one telling YOU to ‘get involved’ and ‘stop whining’.

Or, as my drill sergeant and First Sergeant and Platoon Sergeant would put it, “Shut up and soldier.”

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]

P.S. Been there. Done that. Lived to wear the t-shirts. Got four of em, so far.

“Chuck, why not go ahead and lay out your own solution instead of pointing to imagined weaknesses in our own, and then we can debate based on merits, not shortcomings.” — William

I think I have been laying such out.

And there is NOTHING ‘imagined’ about JEM’s defeatism. I think I’ve pointed that out rather effectively.

Your lack of ‘perception’ is either a problem with your education or with something worse.

If the former, I’d suggest you contemplate, more deeply, what I’ve posted here. The answer is in there. [Note: If you're too 'tired' to think, ask me again....at your own risk.]

RE: The One Face of William

“And there is only one William in the discussion.” — William

Sakes.

So, Benton….he is a ‘liar’? Or is he just ‘ignorant’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[They killed Socrates for asking questions they were afraid to answer.]

P.S. Socrates was the name of my first cat. A Siamese with an evil disposition. Ran off a full grown German Shepard one time. Almost scratched the eyes out of the vet we took him to see. Had admirable ‘fighting spirit’.

That is why they won’t fight us that way. They know what our reaction to a conventional terrorist attack will be. Of course it will disrupt live significantly and our lives will never be this comfortable again.

They want to make the big hit – and if this Iranian leader really is into bringing back the 12th iman it sounds like he needs to make a big splash.

I am laughing at your superior intellect. You cannot even answer a simple question.

You have said nothing but … get involved, and carry a gun. Great carry a gun – it won’t help you in the overall scheme of things. It will help you with the individual crazy of course, but I do not fear them, for that very reason. Israel didn’t stop the bombings against it until the Israeli government began a targeted assassination campaign against the terrorist leaders in the PLO movement. Once that happened, the bombings mostly stopped. The individual carrying of arms did nothing more than force a change of tactics.

So Chuck, when you learn to read, and analyze facts, please let us all know, until then, continue your amusing posts with your quotes you don’t understand – you are perhaps less than a lightweight. I wish you could give me something to think about, but the rantings of someone with a kindergarten education at best makes it difficult. If you can respond to my read, as well as kevino’s, of the current global situation, it might get interesting. Until then go clean you toys.

No – if I were a child I would have done what you did and focused on one sidebar point and used words like winey and defeatest without showing any ability to consider context and the like. And despite repeated requests to actually discuss the point behind my initial post, which is – does western civ have the will to fight for itself – you have focused almost exclusively on carrying a sidearm. Which considering my initial point means nothing. In this scenerio, the gun won’t save society – it might save you as the individual but that is it, until you are overwhelmed.

And how many times have you said you’ll get to it later? Ha! You have no clue. We are on what, post 83 or so? I hope I don’t die waiting for you to actually argue a point! I unfortunately have other things to do, and will be unavailable for a few days. I don’t have time to wait for you to read up on the issue in order to make some sort of an argument.

I understand that Hezboohoo’s leader, Nasrallah, is calling for a cease-fire [probably from somewhere DEEP inside the Iranian embassy in Beirut].

That’s an interesting ‘indicator’, as any Army spook would put it.

When reading the report, I was reminded of Niven and Pournelle’s classic, Footfall. Particularly when the leader of the ‘herd’, upon seeing the approach of ‘doom’ asked the human captives, “What do they want?”

And his astonishment when the political leader of the human captives said, “To kill you.”

To my brethren-in-arms amongst the Israelites….

Do ‘get involved’. Thoroughly.

Go to! Drive the point home, to the hilt.

Good hunting and good luck.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The American way of war is 'jihad'. -- T.R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War ('61)]